Women and men are commonly seen as having different strengths and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?

Males and females are often viewed as having differing skill sets. It is agreed that it is correct to exclude people from certain jobs on the basis of their gender, but only in very limited circumstances. This essay will first discuss how physical attributes prevent women from excelling in particular roles; secondly discuss how society at large rejects men from undertaking certain careers, followed by a reasoned conclusion. For many years the general consensus in the armed forces is that women should not be allowed to participate in combat missions. This is because most women lack the brute strength required for this particular occupation and it is, therefore, right to prevent them from joining the ranks. For example, the American Army recently allowed some women to fight on the front line and the Department of Defence deemed the experiment a failure, due to lack of fighting effectiveness. Despite this, many women have fought in many wars, famously on the Eastern Front for Russia and the Viet Cong in Vietnam, so maybe it is men’s’ attitudes that prevent them performing rather than their stature. Society has yet to accept men in many traditionally female positions, such as nanny or beautician. Businesses feel that it is fine to not hire men for these posts because most of their customers would not be willing to have a man perform that service. I personally know of one example when a friend failed at the interview stage when applying to become a kindergarten teacher because he was the wrong sex. To summarise, in limited circumstances it is just to prohibit people from certain occupations, but only if they cannot physically perform or if the general consensus is that it is a single sex post